User:Eric80212/sandbox

Past federal action
In 1998, Carol Browner, head of the EPA during the Clinton administration, stated that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But there were no regulations actually put in place until after MA v EPA due to the election of the Bush administration.

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

In 2003, the EPA made two determinations:


 * 1) The EPA lacked authority under the CAA to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs for climate change purposes.
 * 2) Even if the EPA did have such authority, it would decline to set GHG emissions standards for vehicles, citing disagreement amongst scientists that GHGs contribute to global warming.

Arguments
The Petitioners argued that the definition in the CAA is so broad that carbon dioxide must be counted as an air pollutant. They claimed that the question was controlled by the words of the statute, so that factual debate was immaterial. Furthermore, the Petitioners filed substantial scientific evidence that the toxicity of carbon dioxide results from high concentrations and that causation of global warming transforms the gas into a pollutant. If the statutory definition of the CAA includes carbon dioxide, then the Federal courts would have no discretion to reach any other conclusion. The definition contained in the statute, not evidence or opinion, would control the outcome. The law's definition of air pollutant contains "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive ... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air, ..." Both sides agreed that CO2 and greenhouse gases are part of the second half. Petitioners argued that the use of 'including' automatically means greenhouse gases are part of the first group, 'any air pollution agent' which was not separately defined.

The Petitioners asserted that the EPA Administrator's decision not to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases violated the terms of the CAA. Thus, the Supreme Court also considered whether the reasons given by the EPA were valid reasons within the CAA statute for the EPA Administrator to decide not to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA argued that the Administrator has the discretion under the CAA to decide not to regulate. The EPA also argued that because global warming is a global issue that any action taken regarding greenhouse gas emissions must be made by the President, that the EPA doesn't have the ability to regulate all GHG emissions.

The EPA Administrator argued that other actions are already being taken to increase fuel efficiency of automobiles and that (as of 2003) scientific investigation was still under way, by the Department of Transportation. Thus, the EPA Administrator decided not to regulate "at this time".

The EPA Administrator declined to regulate carbon dioxide based on the scientific uncertainty about whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. The Petitioners argued that scientific uncertainty is not a valid basis for the EPA Administrator to decline to regulate.

Opinion of the Court
Finally, the Court remanded the case to the EPA, requiring the agency to review its contention that it has discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation. The EPA is only allowed to avoid creating regulations based only on scientific grounds, and in finding the hazardousness of GHGs, the EPA must create regulations on automobile emissions.

Scalia's dissent
First, Justice Scalia found that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case because petitioners lack standing, which would have ended the inquiry. However, since the majority saw fit to find standing, his dissent continued. The main question is, "Does anything require the Administrator to make a 'judgment' whenever a petition for rulemaking is filed?" Justice Scalia sees the Court's answer to this unequivocally as yes, but with no authority to back it. He backs this assertion by explaining that the "statute says nothing at all about the reasons for which the Administrator may defer making a judgment"—the permissible reasons for deciding not to grapple with the issue at the present time. Scalia saw no basis in law for the Court's imposed limitation.

In response to the Court's statement that, "If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so," Scalia responded that EPA has done precisely that, in the form of the National Research Council panel that researched climate-change science. The panel stated that it believes that humans are attributing to climate change, but they drew no conclusions on how much of the contemporary temperature increase is due to human activity, saying that it is "likely mostly" due to human activity.

Precedents
The decision of the Supreme Court to grant standing to The Petitioners sets the precedent of granting legitimacy to suits pertaining to greenhouse gases. Previous standards of standing did not include the type of suit that was presented in this case, overturning the precedent of Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife. The court granted a "special solicitude" to the states due to the effects on their territory. This case set the precedent for the states to challenge federal regulation standards that have a bearing over the health of the state's citizenry. The court opinion specifically that the states have standing in relation to the federal government regarding the environment due to their status as both a state and as part of the United States, called its "quasi-sovereign interests".

Government action
Directly after the decision by the Supreme Court, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13432 to state that the U.S. would use the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency to lower GHG emissions from automobiles. The EPA administrator at the time, Stephen Johnson, said that he supported the statement by Bush and was taking action in cooperation with the policies stated by The White House.

The findings of the court had impacts into the next presidential administration. Two years after the Clean Air Act was determined to include greenhouse gas emissions in 2009, the Obama administration released the Endangerment Finding, which listed 6 greenhouse gases as pollution. In 2013 the Obama administration announced the Clean Power Plan which would regulate the emissions produced by power plants in the U.S.

This case led to the United States to take further part in international actions to limit the output of greenhouse gas emissions. Before, the United States had refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but after the Supreme Court laid out its decision, George W. Bush signed an executive order to participate in the creation of the Bali Action Plan, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which addressed the issues the United States found with the protocol.